Stephan Thernstrom: Kerry's Phony Test for WarRoundup: Historians' Take
Robert Kagan offered a thoughtful critique of the "Kerry Doctrine" -- that the United States goes to war only "because we have to." I suggest another example he failed to mention.
Did President Abraham Lincoln really have to use force to preserve the Union in 1861? After all, the people of several Southern states were only asserting a right that had been spelled out in the Declaration of Independence long before. These people reached their decision through democratic political processes.
No serious historian would contend that the Confederacy had any designs on Northern territory. Had Lincoln been willing to abandon Fort Sumter instead of resupplying it, 600,000 American deaths could have been avoided.
I believe that Lincoln was un- questionably right to act as he did, but I wonder how supporters of the Kerry Doctrine could reach the same conclusion.
comments powered by Disqus
- Charleston Apologizes for City’s Role in Slave Trade
- With 'America First,' Trump Challenges The World Constructed After World War II
- Newly Discovered ‘Limb Pit’ Reveals Civil War Surgeons’ Bitter Choices
- Mark Twain Claimed He Got His Pen Name From a Riverboat Captain
- The story of the slave trade’s last survivor
- Parents, Teachers, Legislators Support Reinstating Passage of U.S. History Test as High School Graduation Requirement in Massachusetts
- Mary Beard on big thinkers and 'sexist rants’
- If postwar history starts in 1951, did the UK Tories ‘blue-wash’ the A-level syllabus?
- Daniel Pipes predicts chaos in the Middle East as countries turn away from fossil fuels
- Stanley Fish says historians are deluded in thinking their training gives them special insights in politics that should be passed on to students (and others)